Share This Story!

NM CAP Entity talks about budget

SILVER CITY — Members of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity met last week and heard an earful from concerned attendants who questioned the board's spending, as wellThe roll call of members showed a quorum.

NM CAP Entity talks about budget

SILVER CITY — Members of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity met last week in Silver City and heard an earful from concerned attendants who questioned the board's spending, as well as its transparency in giving information to the public.

Public comments started the CAP Entity's meeting Tuesday at the Grant County Administration Center.

"After resuming the April meeting after closed session, the CAP entity approved its budget for FY2017," Allyson Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition director, said. "The CAP Entity approved a very large expenditure of $850,000 to 'pre-bank' water under the AWSA. The public is in the dark regarding the purpose of spending nearly a million dollars to pre-bank this water. You all have fiduciary responsibility for public funds and we the public have seen little evidence that you take this charge seriously, like asking questions, discussing the pros and cons of spending this huge sum of money on pre-banking water to execute an exchange that may never take place."

CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez the $850,000 is to bank water from a possible project.

"The Arizona Water Settlements Act is specific about banking water prior to diversion or project plans," Gutierrez said in the Finance Committee report. "There's no scheme; it's in the act. We have to pre-bank water over a period of years." He said preliminary discussions have been held with the Gila River Indian Community and with Freeport McMoRan.

Siwik asked for clarification. "I agree pre-banking is allowed. How does it relate to financing? Is leasing what you are contemplating for financing and is it legal?"

"We haven't gotten there yet," Gutierrez said. "We've been looking at existing contracts in Arizona, trying to open more conversations with GRIC."

M.H. "Dutch" Salmon, a Grant County resident, said no one has stepped up to buy the water from a diversion. "It is time to articulate a new destiny for the Gila River. The Gila is in better shape now than years ago."

Other commentors criticized the entity for what they called its lack of transparency.

Norman Gaume, retired engineer and former Interstate Stream Commission director, said he has filed Inspection of Public Records Act requests "to try to determine what's going on, because there is no public discussion. It's the strategy I will be using as long as you remain as opaque as you have."

"It's time you tackle (the finances) in public," Gaume said. "How much is being spent and how much is left? It's my right to hear. The ISC (Interstate Stream Commission) said the scoping for NEPA won't happen until spring. There is no info on when or what will be built. You are conducting deliberative work in committees."

He alleged Gutierrez said at the recent ISC meeting that a project has been decided in committee.

"I will amend my complaint to the attorney general if that is the case," Gaume said. "I request your legals include the notice, agenda and minutes."

Gutierrez defended the entity's record.

"It has been difficult to hear comments," he said. We have heard complaints about openness and transparency. People take one word out of context and change the intent of what you said."

In his Technical Committee report, Gutierrez said members have tried to figure out how to prioritize a project. The next step would be to gather all of the data an engineer will need, which would be brought to the board to move forward.

"I will work with the engineer to move things along," Gutierrez said. "The NEPA process is pending. Once we have a notice of intent, we can move forward. Any decision to be made must come to this board. Then we will move forward with the engineering and the scope."

Darr Shannon, CAP Entity chairwoman, said: "We have a lot of missions to accomplish. We want to address a lot of issues, but sometimes, we don't know the answer."

CAP attorney Pete Domenici Jr. noted the scope of the Finance Committee is broad. "It is evolving into relationship building. One is with the Gila River Indian Community. They have suggested we purchase credits. The financial benefit for us is undefined."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Spring Ditch Association asked if the water could be bought at $154 an acre-foot and sold at $167. "It would make better interest than it's getting in the bank. The fund is earmarked with some for construction and some for other projects. These are not new funds. They have been set aside for a distinct purpose."

Gaume pointed out that the CAP Entity's joint powers agreement precludes anything but a diversion project. "The non-diversion alternatives are not in your domain."

Shannon said: "We're trying to do our best for New Mexico, especially the southwest corner."

"Our intent is to gain revenue while providing for water needed," Gutierrez said. "The Grant County Water Commission is getting little pockets of money to produce a viable project. The smaller communities don't have matching funds, so if we have a revenue source, we can assist other areas. We want the maximum benefit from (potential) delivery of the water to Arizona."

Vance Lee of Hidalgo County said non-diversion alternatives are the other 14 projects, other than the diversion. "Those are under the purview of the ISC. The decisions are not made here, but in consultation with the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission."

"I think the ISC is receptive to our approach," Gutierrez said. "We are still under the umbrella of moving forward on a diversion. The $850,000 is for 5,000 acre-feet at $170 an acre-foot. The details are not made. That number will be decided by this board after discussion with GRIC and the ISC, as well. Now the budget has gone to the Department of Finance and Administration for approval."

Kim Abeyta-Martinez, a non-voting member on the CAP Entity representing the ISC, said the agency has been negotiating a memorandum of understanding for the NEPA joint leads — the ISC and Bureau of Reclamation. "It is not yet executed. We just got the draft funding agreement from Reclamation. We are still reviewing the document. There will be a request for proposal for the NEPA contractor."

Domenici asked if the contract was just for funding or also operations.

Vivian Gonzales of Reclamation said the contract includes roles and responsibilities. The funding agreement is just the budget.

Gonzales said once the NEPA memo is approved, it will depend on the description and a cooperating agency document would be executed later.

The next meeting of the NM CAP Entity is slated for 10:30 a.m. June 7 at the Grant County Administration Center.